So, anti gunners who say no one wants to take our guns...what about the 4th circuit gun ban?

[JakeStarkey]

You have guns.

You don't have a constitutional right to weapons of war.

Then i assume you are against NYC's law that makes me wait 6 months and pay $1000 in fees to get a revolver, right?

You are allowed to have a revolver? Then there is no problem constitutionally.

 

[danielpalos]

You have guns.

You don't have a constitutional right to weapons of war.

Do we have a right to guns? you don't mention that, just that we have them.

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

 

[Skull Pilot]

the second amendment does not mention defense

and a folding stock does not make a gun more offensive and so what if a law abiding person has a large capacity magazine?

I don't agree with telling law abiding people they can't own a weapon because someday, maybe, some criminal somewhere might kill someone with the same type of weapon

If I can pass a check, and I can and have, I should be able to buy any rifle I want and any size magazine I want

Yeah, I don't know what that whole "security of a free state" is all about.

But it does not matter what you agree with. There is no constitutional protection to owning an AR-15. It has been adjudicated to the Federal Appeals level, not once, not twice, but three times. It has been confirmed by the SCOTUS.

And the government has been placing limits on weapons for quite some time, even magazine capacity. We were placing plugs in semi-auto shotguns almost fifty years ago, had a capacity limit when we were hunting.

and again to illustrate how stupid those laws are

I can own a Mini 14 which is exactly the same functionally as an AR 15 but because it doesn't have cosmetic doodads it's somehow not as dangerous

the sheer idiocy of it all makes me wonder how anyone with a scintilla of intelligence can so blindly agree with these decisions of the government

It is case law, on a case by case basis.

a ban on a gun is not a case by case basis you idiot

yes, it is, if it happens by case law and not code law.

you cannot ban the ownership of a gun in a state and call it a case by case basis the two are exact opposites

a case by case basis would be disallowing an individual from owning a particular gun or any gun after a hearing of some sort. A statewide ban on a particular rifle is not that

 

[danielpalos]

You have guns.

You don't have a constitutional right to weapons of war.

Then i assume you are against NYC's law that makes me wait 6 months and pay $1000 in fees to get a revolver, right?

I am against the "negligence" of a State, that fails to provide wellness of regulation free of charge, to the unorganized militia, in a more easy and convenient manner.

 

[martybegan]

You have guns.

You don't have a constitutional right to weapons of war.

Then i assume you are against NYC's law that makes me wait 6 months and pay $1000 in fees to get a revolver, right?

You are allowed to have a revolver? Then there is no problem constitutionally.

What part of infringement don't you understand? Plus if you want to Conceal carry, you have to get permission from the police, and they only allow it for special people.

So is a 6 month waiting period and $1000 in fees infringement or not?

Figures you can't have an honest debate about it you ******* hack.

 

[martybegan]

You have guns.

You don't have a constitutional right to weapons of war.

Then i assume you are against NYC's law that makes me wait 6 months and pay $1000 in fees to get a revolver, right?

I am against the "negligence" of a State, that fails to provide wellness of regulation free of charge, to the unorganized militia, in a more easy and convenient manner.

Can you ever answer a question simply?

 

[danielpalos]

You have guns.

You don't have a constitutional right to weapons of war.

Do we have a right to guns? you don't mention that, just that we have them.

Sure. But the courts are going to finally opine across the board, I believe, that we don't have a right to weapons of war. The argument will be in the fine print. You don't need a TOW or a LAW or a frigate for your bathtub.

should we upgrade our regulars, to Arms most "poorer civilians", simply cannot afford, on a regular basis?

 

[danielpalos]

Yeah, I don't know what that whole "security of a free state" is all about.

But it does not matter what you agree with. There is no constitutional protection to owning an AR-15. It has been adjudicated to the Federal Appeals level, not once, not twice, but three times. It has been confirmed by the SCOTUS.

And the government has been placing limits on weapons for quite some time, even magazine capacity. We were placing plugs in semi-auto shotguns almost fifty years ago, had a capacity limit when we were hunting.

and again to illustrate how stupid those laws are

I can own a Mini 14 which is exactly the same functionally as an AR 15 but because it doesn't have cosmetic doodads it's somehow not as dangerous

the sheer idiocy of it all makes me wonder how anyone with a scintilla of intelligence can so blindly agree with these decisions of the government

It is case law, on a case by case basis.

a ban on a gun is not a case by case basis you idiot

yes, it is, if it happens by case law and not code law.

you cannot ban the ownership of a gun in a state and call it a case by case basis the two are exact opposites

a case by case basis would be disallowing an individual from owning a particular gun or any gun after a hearing of some sort. A statewide ban on a particular rifle is not that

then, you cannot blame the Judiciary, they only "make" case law, not code law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have guns.

You don't have a constitutional right to weapons of war.

Then i assume you are against NYC's law that makes me wait 6 months and pay $1000 in fees to get a revolver, right?

You are allowed to have a revolver? Then there is no problem constitutionally.

What part of infringement don't you understand? Plus if you want to Conceal carry, you have to get permission from the police, and they only allow it for special people.

So is a 6 month waiting period and $1000 in fees infringement or not?

Figures you can't have an honest debate about it you ******* hack.

Infringement does not mean an absence of state regulation for ownership of a firearm.

 

[danielpalos]

You have guns.

You don't have a constitutional right to weapons of war.

Then i assume you are against NYC's law that makes me wait 6 months and pay $1000 in fees to get a revolver, right?

You are allowed to have a revolver? Then there is no problem constitutionally.

What part of infringement don't you understand? Plus if you want to Conceal carry, you have to get permission from the police, and they only allow it for special people.

So is a 6 month waiting period and $1000 in fees infringement or not?

Figures you can't have an honest debate about it you ******* hack.

Not being well regulated, is simply, a greater security risk to our free States.

 

[danielpalos]

You have guns.

You don't have a constitutional right to weapons of war.

Then i assume you are against NYC's law that makes me wait 6 months and pay $1000 in fees to get a revolver, right?

I am against the "negligence" of a State, that fails to provide wellness of regulation free of charge, to the unorganized militia, in a more easy and convenient manner.

Can you ever answer a question simply?

The unorganized militia should have, not Only easy access to wellness of regulation, but also, convenient access to wellness of regulation.

 

[martybegan]

You have guns.

You don't have a constitutional right to weapons of war.

Then i assume you are against NYC's law that makes me wait 6 months and pay $1000 in fees to get a revolver, right?

You are allowed to have a revolver? Then there is no problem constitutionally.

What part of infringement don't you understand? Plus if you want to Conceal carry, you have to get permission from the police, and they only allow it for special people.

So is a 6 month waiting period and $1000 in fees infringement or not?

Figures you can't have an honest debate about it you ******* hack.

Infringement does not mean an absence of state regulation for ownership of a firearm.

Dodging again. Why should I have to wait 6 months and pay $1000 for a revolver?

What is the purpose except to make it so difficult that a person gives up?

Answer the ******* question, and stop dodging you ******* hack

 

[martybegan]

You have guns.

You don't have a constitutional right to weapons of war.

Then i assume you are against NYC's law that makes me wait 6 months and pay $1000 in fees to get a revolver, right?

I am against the "negligence" of a State, that fails to provide wellness of regulation free of charge, to the unorganized militia, in a more easy and convenient manner.

Can you ever answer a question simply?

The unorganized militia should have, not Only easy access to wellness of regulation, but also, convenient access to wellness of regulation.

Asshole.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

You have guns.

You don't have a constitutional right to weapons of war.

Do we have a right to guns? you don't mention that, just that we have them.

Sure. But the courts are going to finally opine across the board, I believe, that we don't have a right to weapons of war. The argument will be in the fine print. You don't need a TOW or a LAW or a frigate for your bathtub.

I don't need a printing press in my garage either, rights are not merely a matter of "needing"...as for "weapons of war", if they can be effectively defined so as to never, in any way, infringe on gun rights then I would be willing to test those laws as long as they came with expiration dates that required renewing every couple of years...what the 2nd amendment argument has effectively done is expose those who have claimed to be defenders of the constitution when all they really had was an agenda to push through legislation they could not otherwise win through the ballot box and hid behind it through interpretation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have guns.

You don't have a constitutional right to weapons of war.

Then i assume you are against NYC's law that makes me wait 6 months and pay $1000 in fees to get a revolver, right?

You are allowed to have a revolver? Then there is no problem constitutionally.

What part of infringement don't you understand? Plus if you want to Conceal carry, you have to get permission from the police, and they only allow it for special people. So is a 6 month waiting period and $1000 in fees infringement or not? Figures you can't have an honest debate about it you ******* hack.

Infringement does not mean an absence of state regulation for ownership of a firearm.

Dodging again. Why should I have to wait 6 months and pay $1000 for a revolver? What is the purpose except to make it so difficult that a person gives up? Answer the ******* question, and stop dodging you ******* hack

So your poor language and your behavior kicking your heels on the floor and crying merely means you don't like the law.

Work to change it.

The real issue is that you are a libertarian, a lame brained political philosophy if ever one existed, where the strong torture the weak who have no protection of law.

 

[2aguy]

You have guns.

You don't have a constitutional right to weapons of war.

Do we have a right to guns? you don't mention that, just that we have them.

Sure. But the courts are going to finally opine across the board, I believe, that we don't have a right to weapons of war. The argument will be in the fine print. You don't need a TOW or a LAW or a frigate for your bathtub.

Every single type of gun has been a weapon of war moron....from lever action rifles to bolt action rifles, to pump action shot guns to 6 shot revolvers......

And Heller states specifically that these weapons are Constitutional......any weapon that can be carried by an individual and that isn't unusual...a Tow and Law are unusual....AR-15s are civilian rifles...they are the most popular rifle in the country making them ordinary and no more dangerous than any other rifle and less dangerous than knives...knives kill over 1,500 people every year....rifles of all types about 200.......

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have guns.

You don't have a constitutional right to weapons of war.

Do we have a right to guns? you don't mention that, just that we have them.

Sure. But the courts are going to finally opine across the board, I believe, that we don't have a right to weapons of war. The argument will be in the fine print. You don't need a TOW or a LAW or a frigate for your bathtub.

I don't need a printing press in my garage either, rights are not merely a matter of "needing"...as for "weapons of war", if they can be effectively defined so as to never, in any way, infringe on gun rights then I would be willing to test those laws as long as they came with expiration dates that required renewing every couple of years...what the 2nd amendment argument has effectively done is expose those who have claimed to be defenders of the constitution when all they really had was an agenda to push through legislation they could not otherwise win through the ballot box and hid behind it through interpretation.

Understand, please, the difference between need and right, and that they are not the same. You may need or not need a weapon of war, but that does not matter: only if you have right is the issue.

 

[2aguy]

(1) No one is coming to take away your weapons.
(2) No one in the future is going to take your weapons.
(3) Citizens have no constitutional right to "weapons of war," a finding which Roberts' court will uphold particularly with Gorsuch coming on board.

Not until a widely acceptable agreement is reached on just what the term, "weapons of war," actually refers to -- starting with the atomic bomb and considering that the very ordinary pump action 12 gauge shotgun was effectively (and preferably) used in the jungles of Vietnam.

And World WAr 1....

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have guns.

You don't have a constitutional right to weapons of war.

Do we have a right to guns? you don't mention that, just that we have them.

Sure. But the courts are going to finally opine across the board, I believe, that we don't have a right to weapons of war. The argument will be in the fine print. You don't need a TOW or a LAW or a frigate for your bathtub.

Every single type of gun has been a weapon of war moron....from lever action rifles to bolt action rifles, to pump action shot guns to 6 shot revolvers......

And Heller states specifically that these weapons are Constitutional......any weapon that can be carried by an individual and that isn't unusual...a Tow and Law are unusual....AR-15s are civilian rifles...they are the most popular rifle in the country making them ordinary and no more dangerous than any other rifle and less dangerous than knives...knives kill over 1,500 people every year....rifles of all types about 200.......

Well, that is certainly your opinion, but who cares, kid?

The Courts will make that decision.

 

[2aguy]

You have guns.

You don't have a constitutional right to weapons of war.

Do we have a right to guns? you don't mention that, just that we have them.

Sure. But the courts are going to finally opine across the board, I believe, that we don't have a right to weapons of war. The argument will be in the fine print. You don't need a TOW or a LAW or a frigate for your bathtub.

Heller, Miller and Caetanto decisions in the Supreme Court say you and the 4th Circuit are wrong...along with countless other cases and legal Precedents....